10 Rated Games and Continuous Membership

[gowan]

My apologies if I overstated my feelings. The facts are, as TMark pointed out, the WAGC is organized and run by the IGF, which invites member organizations to send representatives to the WAGC. The AGA is a member of the IGF and is the one asked to send a representative. Thus if you want to get another organization from the USA to be able to send representatives it will have to join the IGF and be invited to do so. The AGA is entitled to determine the qualifications for being sent to the WAGC and other events. These criteria were presumably voted on by the directors or the chapters. If you want to change them talk to the directors or the chapters. If you want the people who belong to these "many" Chinese and Korean clubs "outside" the AGA be able to participate as things now stand they'll have to follow the rules. They may say they don't get any benefit from being an AGA member. I'd say they get a big one, namely the ability to compete to go to the WAGC. The AGA is not a closed society, anyone who pays dues is a member. And why would anyone interested in promoting and playing go in the USA not want to join the oldest, biggest, and most succesful go organization in the country?

[shapenaji]

I remember many years ago being involved in a go club in a city where there were many Korean and Chinese players who never came to the established non-Asian go clubs and would only enter the tournaments, which had 5d+ "white" players when the strongest American players were 5d or 6d), unless there was a significant prize. They'd pay the $5 limited AGA membership fee, play, and usually one of them would win the first prize, and then they'd disappear until the next tournament. They weren't interested in being part of the go community. Much effort was put into inviting them to come to our clubs, trying to get them involved, to no avail. I think the problem is that for them, go, baduk, or weiqi was a cultural thing, a way to preserve their own culture in a foreign environment. So they really had no interest in participating in the game outside their own clubs unless they had a chance to win a lot of money or merchandise (e.g. donated TV). It's irrelevant whether such players are stronger than more active players, they don't care about the American national go community and they don't "represent" the American national go community.

Wait, what do you mean they weren't interested in being part of the go community? They ARE the go community, they have their own clubs, did you ever go to those? Part of bridging a cultural gap is coming half-way, using a little Gramsci on 'em.

They do care (they're not inhuman), but what did you guys have to offer them? Prizes are the norm for Korean tournaments, not the exception, they attended not only because they thought they could win, but because I imagine it fit a cultural norm for the game.

If this is really a problem, then the solution is to change the "temporary AGA membership" statute so that they don't just pay an additional $5 each time. I'd also like you to recognize how much you are stereotyping an entire group of go-players. They don't care? Have you talked to them much?

On a similar topic, there are a lot of fairly strong players on KGS or other servers who appear to live in the USA but who are not AGA members. I don't consider them to be members of the American go community. They might as well be living anywhere else in the world judging from their support and participation.

Honestly, this part had me seeing red. If I didn't know that Joaz would have to clean up my obscenities, they'd be flying across your screen right now. They are American, and they play go, they are part of the American go community. They've shown as much respect for the AGA as the AGA has for their clubs, they don't deserve that.

Shapenaji's proposed fees are too small. If someone who lives in the USA wants to try to represent the US but can't meet the current requirements they should be charged a serious surcharge, enough to make them reconsider, say $200 entrance fee. I really don't believe that entering a tournament will encourage these people to participate in the AGA if that's all they want to do.

Gee, lets charge $200 for a go tournament with a $1000 prize... I'm not even going to dignify this suggestion.

[shapenaji]

If I try to run an advert for the qualifier in 12 months, "Get your AGA memberships now and start on your year of good-standing!", I think I'm going to get laughed at.

Not if the actual qualifier was a series of events spread out over 12 months time.

.... but it's not. Nor is it likely to be. That's not the structure of qualifying tournaments in this country.

[shapenaji]

The AGA is not a business and should not be governed as such. My yearly dues does not give me stock options and it never should.

... And this is perhaps why the US go congress is so absurdly expensive.

[Kirby]

...If you want to change them talk to the directors or the chapters. ...

I have come to have an understanding already about how the process works, and am simply pointing out my disagreement with some of the qualifications - this is the topic we're discussing, right?

I think it's useful to have this discussion here - it is the AGA Go Association forum on L19, after all. Discussion can help us to realize how various people feel about the issue.

Maybe after this discussion, we could forward our findings to somebody here, I guess.

[xed_over]

If I try to run an advert for the qualifier in 12 months, "Get your AGA memberships now and start on your year of good-standing!", I think I'm going to get laughed at.

Not if the actual qualifier was a series of events spread out over 12 months time.

.... but it's not. Nor is it likely to be. That's not the structure of qualifying tournaments in this country.

...but it is, indirectly -- in the form of playing 10 additional rated games throughout the year.

and its just as likely that the structure of our qualifying tournaments change -- maybe from this very discussion

[Kirby]

Could I get clarification on how a policy is changed in the AGA? Does the president just decide: I need this, or do the representatives vote, or ...?

If somebody is voting on this stuff, exactly who is doing the voting?

Also, what about new ideas for the AGA? How do those come about?

I already mentioned it, but when I volunteered before, my services weren't needed. In this case, for example, who decides that my services aren't needed?Did they have a vote and say, "can we use help in area X atm?", or...?

Likewise for this policy, who would actually make a decision about changing it?

Also, let's say I had an idea to implement for the aga as a volunteer. Who would decide if I could do my idea?

[vash3g]

Could I get clarification on how a policy is changed in the AGA? Does the president just decide: I need this, or do the representatives vote, or ...?

If somebody is voting on this stuff, exactly who is doing the voting?

Likewise for this policy, who would actually make a decision about changing it?

The president suggests policy to the Board of Directors who votes whether or not to make policy. The president overseas day-to-day operations. The Board is long term as well as policy. I'm sure one of your board reps can help you best understand the process.

Also, what about new ideas for the AGA? How do those come about? Also, let's say I had an idea to implement for the aga as a volunteer. Who would decide if I could do my idea?

I already mentioned it, but when I volunteered before, my services weren't needed. In this case, for example, who decides that my services aren't needed? Did they have a vote and say, "can we use help in area X atm?", or...?

New ideas come about A)people saying "i'm going to do this for the AGA" and start working on it B)writing an RFP for the president C)do something outside of the AGA and hope that they integrate it

Your services are decided by other volunteers based on amount of work that is needed at any given time. The webmaster doesnt have a lot of work most of the time and a lot of pondering and researching stuff for upgrades in the future. Sometimes if someone wants to help out and I have nothing I'll ask other people doing web/database work and see if they need/want help.

[Kirby]

Could I get clarification on how a policy is changed in the AGA? Does the president just decide: I need this, or do the representatives vote, or ...?

If somebody is voting on this stuff, exactly who is doing the voting?

Likewise for this policy, who would actually make a decision about changing it?

The president suggests policy to the Board of Directors who votes whether or not to make policy. The president overseas day-to-day operations. The Board is long term as well as policy. I'm sure one of your board reps can help you best understand the process.

So the board ultimately decides policy, right?

Also, what about new ideas for the AGA? How do those come about? Also, let's say I had an idea to implement for the aga as a volunteer. Who would decide if I could do my idea?

I already mentioned it, but when I volunteered before, my services weren't needed. In this case, for example, who decides that my services aren't needed? Did they have a vote and say, "can we use help in area X atm?", or...?

New ideas come about A)people saying "i'm going to do this for the AGA" and start working on it B)writing an RFP for the president C)do something outside of the AGA and hope that they integrate it

Your services are decided by other volunteers based on amount of work that is needed at any given time. The webmaster doesnt have a lot of work most of the time and a lot of pondering and researching stuff for upgrades in the future. Sometimes if someone wants to help out and I have nothing I'll ask other people doing web/database work and see if they need/want help.

Are all said volunteers elected? For example, were you elected as webmaster? If not, how do these volunteers get chosen?

[kirkmc]

They do care (they're not inhuman), but what did you guys have to offer them? Prizes are the norm for Korean tournaments, not the exception, they attended not only because they thought they could win, but because I imagine it fit a cultural norm for the game.
.

What "you guys have to offer them?" The prize money bothers you? This is an organization for amateurs. If it's the prize money that's an issue, I really think that you're barking up the wrong kaya tree. If people aren't joining because the prize money is too low, then, personally, I'd rather they stay away. If they only reason they join is to win prizes, and not play the game they like, help others learn, etc, then they certainly don't belong.

[shapenaji]

They do care (they're not inhuman), but what did you guys have to offer them? Prizes are the norm for Korean tournaments, not the exception, they attended not only because they thought they could win, but because I imagine it fit a cultural norm for the game.
.

What "you guys have to offer them?" The prize money bothers you? This is an organization for amateurs. If it's the prize money that's an issue, I really think that you're barking up the wrong kaya tree. If people aren't joining because the prize money is too low, then, personally, I'd rather they stay away. If they only reason they join is to win prizes, and not play the game they like, help others learn, etc, then they certainly don't belong.

Prizes aren't the only reason they play. But it is important to remark that there is a cultural phenomenon of having something to play for. I've seen two guys play a 5-10 game set, spanning like 8 hours, where they were playing bangneki, and the money kept swinging back and forth. By the end, I think one of them ended up $20. It was an even set between friends.

It's not that they're trying to make a living out of it, or fleece their opponents. I think the way that they would put it is "It's not about making money, it's about making it interesting, you fight harder when there's something to fight for"

[kirkmc]

I'm just guessing, not being a member of the AGA, but I'm not sure that gambling over go is part of the organization's ethos. And prizes are given, I'm guessing, as a way of offering some sort of reward, but if the prizes become the goal, then those are probably players I wouldn't want to be involved in a go association.

[John Fairbairn]

I'm disappointed that so much of the discussion is about the rules and not about the underlying foundation on which the AGA is run.

The kinds of ideas and feelings that shapenaji and Kirby have are not only not original but have a long and meritorious history. They lie behind many things we take for granted, such as public parks, public libraries and public health services. However, if you look at how these came about, they all or mostly depended on someone's largesse. Many such schemes here in the UK were the result of philanthropy by Victorian factory-owners. With the founders now dead, the burden of paying for the schemes typically falls on the taxpayer, and some do moan about that, but the majority seem to see that the benefits outweigh the cost. This is all fair grist to the mill of shapenaji. If it could happen for go, many of us would be delighted. In some senses it already has. Instead of Victorian factory-owners we have been blessed by Oriental industrialists (and others) who have given money to the Nihon Ki-in and so on in order to pass on, indirectly, to us.

Marvellous. The only trouble is that this kind of benevolence costs a lot of money, nearly always from people who are lucky enough to feel they've got too much. There is another way of creating large-scale group activities, though, and that is if people give their time or skills instead of money. Volunteerism. Charities are an especially successful form of this mode of operation, but largely because they go out and seek money from others, so they get to do high-profile work.

Organisations like the AGA are at the bottom of the pile because they rely on volunteers but have very few sources of income. Their activities therefore tend to be limited. Much early Chinese philosophy was about Confucius arguing in favour of benevolence and others telling him not to be such an idealistic prat. The evidence of the discussion here likewise suggests that it is a basic human response only to feel benevolent with outsiders once you've got something to spare. Now, what volunteers are mainly giving is time, and most of us tend to feel we never have enough time, so that even giving a small portion is like giving blood. It is actually quite a major commitment to give time rather than money. The instinctive response to abuse of that time (abuse in both senses: criticism and not obeying rules) seems to be resentment, soon followed by giving up volunteering. Then we have no organisation at all.

That is why I say that the first priority is to respect the volunteers. This is quite a subtle process. It is not just about patting someone on the back and saying "good job". It is also about allowing the volunteers to make the rules that they are happy with, to do things their way. One of the attractions of volunteering is often being able to be in control - a change from having a tier of bosses at work. Suggestions to do things another way often cut against that grain. Suggestions such as shapenaji's proposal to charge outsiders more but let them enjoy benefits as non-members are actually very insulting to many volunteers. Their response is, "I'm giving TIME not money - that's much more important! Typical of you people think money solves everything, etc. etc." And even if we think that's a little extreme for our own stance, I think many of us can sympathise with it.

The AGA (like many other western go organisations) has another special feature which compounds this feeling of smallness and clubbiness. Go has long been seen here as a freaky activity which not many people own up to in public. Finding like-minded people, often after a long search, is like finding water in the desert and many discoverers feel a strong inclination to protect the oasis.

I'd say a clubby feeling in an organisation like the AGA seems natural and inevitable, and - since I also believe time is not money, it's worth more than that - I would add honourable. At the very least it should be an understandable feeling, not something to make one see red.

It is, however, just as honourable to argue for change or improvement. The key there, though, is first to understand the people you are working with. The proposals for change as outlined here seem, to me, typical of the results of firms paying a team of consultants to implement some "change is necessary" mantra espoused by some director who has too little to do except follow American business school fashion. In my experience, all these reports are entrusted to bright bods who have just achieved good degrees. This is their first test. I have yet to see a case where I would regard the bright young things as having passed the test, and the reason is invariably because they are too young to understand people. Their plans are often implemented, though, and the result is chaos and resentment. Very often the old ways are eventually restored, and the bright young things and the director mutter about dinosaurs being resistant to change. They stubbornly overlook that people are people and that old ways of doing things usually came about for a very good reason. They also overlook that these people supposedly resistant to change are in fact using the latest electronic gadgets, following the latest fashions and so on.

In the proposals for change put forward here I see little evidence of understanding people, even by open-hearted Kirby who, commendably, professes to try very hard. I happen to think he fails because it is about much more than seeing the other person's point of view. It's also about understanding things like "there's nowt as queer as folk".

I think that phrase would also explain the difficulties in implementing shapenaji's ideas about reaching out to Korean etc clubs. As sweet as it sounds on paper, reality is more like the way gowan suggests. Some Korean clubs in particular want to be left alone to gamble. There was a very big case in Buenos Aires a few years ago where (as I recall) the police closed down several baduk "dens" and the fines were so spectacular that you had to wonder whether the amounts changing hands must have been enormous. Even if there is no gambling, Oriental clubs are not always full of American members. The Nippon Club in London was almost exclusively for Japanese businessmen who had been posted to London. It allowed no British members, although it generously hosted several very friendly matches with British teams. (As the Japanese economy entrenched the businessmen went home and the club became a shell.) There is also the point that many Orientals shy away from contact with native English speakers because they feel they will lose face because of their poor English. In the light of all of the above, an advert in the local press inviting them to qualify to represent America seems naive.

Outreach to the people in these clubs is certainly a good idea, but again it needs more subtlety and experience. I suspect that gowan, who knows Japanese and passes his knowledge of things Japanese on, has thus, irrespective of what else he may have done, done far, far more in promoting friendly relations between Japanese and Americans than any of the ideas presented here.

[Kirby]

...
One of the attractions of volunteering is often being able to be in control - a change from having a tier of bosses at work.
...

I agree with this statement - and I think it's part of what is annoying to me. There is a small handful of volunteers who actually have control to make decisions. But even if you want to volunteer and help out, it is very hard to get into this club.

If people are involved with the AGA, that's great. But the AGA is not equivalent to go. I wish that this small group of power (aka. the people that have been lucky enough to get into the volunteer group) would be more open to supporting go OUTSIDE of the AGA, as well as within.

But I feel that I have absolutely no say in the matter. I'm not a part of that small power club of volunteers.

I happen to think he fails because it is about much more than seeing the other person's point of view. It's also about understanding things like "there's nowt as queer as folk".

1.) What point of view would you like for me to see?

2.) Has anybody in the AGA "power group" ever considered alternative points of view? As an example, the AGA president sent out an email a little while back talking about a decline in membership in the AGA, and asked for ideas. I'll admit that this is unfortunate, but as an AGA member, I had some ideas about why people have stopped being members, so I passed them along.

One of my ideas was to start doing a hardcopy of the journal, again. It could even be something optional that people could pay a little bit more for at the start of the year. But there was no discussion about this, and as far as I know, there was no voting. The response was simply, "Nope, that won't work. Too much money.".

OK, so that may be true. Maybe it would be too much money. But I would like to at least have more discussion about it - or at least it could be brought up to whatever board makes decisions. So maybe the board has already discussed it. That's fine, but could I hear more of the reasoning behind the decision that the board has made? So you could say that I need to see the other person's point of view. I can try to do that. But I really don't feel that the volunteer power club has ever made an effort to see my point of view, either.

If it's about seeing the other person's point of view, I think that the people that actually have the power in the AGA should be more active in trying to see members' views. I could work on the same, but I have no power to begin with, so it makes little difference.

[John Fairbairn]

Kirby: To me you sound very confused. Maybe that's my fault, but I find it hard to understand that your response to my suggestion not just to rely on seeing other people's point of view would be to ask whose point of view to take? It sounds like the old sketch (Monty Python?) about a guy wanting to buy a machine - doesn't matter whether it does the job so long as it's got lots of functions. What I'm hearing here is "doesn't matter about the people, so long as they've got lots of points of view I can understand".

It's not the point of view you need to understand (though that's useful). It's the people. People often act in ways that don't reflect their public points of view. You see that a lot in volunteering. Probably that's because it's often chosen as a way of being one's own boss (which is what I meant by being in control - not being in charge) and doing something where the usual constraints such as answering to a real and possibly "pain in the ass" boss can be cast off. I expect many volunteers will tell you that bosses are absolutely necessary to avoid chaos and can be really nice people etc etc, but that doesn't stop them really relishing the freedom of being their own bosses in a volunteer organisation and resenting it when people try to tell them what to do.

Most people will tell you they like to watch respectable, stimulating, educational kind of movies. Sam Goldwyn didn't say, "Ah, I understand, they want to better themselves, or watch something uplifting with the whole family". He knew people and understood you can't underestimate their bad taste.

I believe that if you look at how people act as opposed to the point of view they express, you may still feel frustrated but you'll understand at a deeper level and be better placed to mesh yourself in.

Specifically, in the case here, one thing that terrifies many volunteers, though they would never say so, is being asked to do too much (i.e. give more of that very precious time they've allocated). Talking about outreach, expanding the community, flying to the moon and so on just gives them the heeby jeebies. It's no wonder they react by going into a shell, or what you call a club. Somebody else higher up in the thread wisely summarised the ways to proceed, which included doing something off your own bat and trying to get it and yourself accepted, rather than asking an existing volunteer to give extra time to managing you by finding things for you to do (not knowing if you're even reliable).

One more specific only you can answer. You say you get "annoyed". Do you really know why you get annoyed? You might say it's because the AGA did this or didn't do that. Is that really the reason. Look at yourself as a person. Is it just because you are (for example) a short-tempered person?

EDIT: I did not write donkey and I do find the admins here are being increasingly heavy-handed. It's a stupid change anyway as it just draws more attention to the phrase. Let's see if they will accept "pain in the bum".